Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Monday, July 12, 2010

I drove to the hardware store yesterday -- not the big-box, just a nice neighborhood ACE. Waiting in the checkout line in front of me was a woman buying paint who appeared to be in her 50's with bibs and paint splotched on her. She seemed to be a pleasant, intelligent person --until we headed for the parking lot and I followed as her SUV headed for the exit.

On the back bumper was a simple sticker with two lines... each one backgrounded in a different color..the top red and the lower blue. It read " Red State Resident, Blue State Values."

Does she find living in Alaska so embarrasing that she must announce to the world that she is better and more moral than the conservative rednecks living around her?

Is she a political activist who finds a need to do whatever she can to bring the light of wisdom, however tiny, to the traffic morons she encounters?

Whatever the motivation, the simple statement belies a huge difference in conservative principles and liberal (socialist) "values". But let's back up just a bit.

A conservative believes there are moral absolutes in the world; some things are right and others are wrong. The circumstances notwithstanding. We believe, for example, that it is right to protect your family, to personally help those in need and to treat people equitably. We believe it is wrong to murder children, to steal from others or to use the legal system to punish political foes and reward friends. Not so our liberal comrades where abortion-on-demand, massive deficit spending and Chicago-style gangland politics are given a pass in the era of the messiah, Obama.

To a liberal, the very act of declaring a value or "moral judgement" is a horrifying infringement of some "right." (see the post on Evan Sayet's speech) Liberals have NO values, unless "living for the moment", "do what comes naturally", "do what feels good" or some other equally vapid phrase is the bumper sticker of the day guiding their lives.

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Not the party of 'no' as suggested by Democrats, but the party of here's-what-to-do, or as I like, git-r-done.

... Republicans list a number of spending proposals to close the budget gap, most of which has already been introduced to the House and ignored by Nancy Pelosi. It counters the entire narrative of the Party of No, showing that Republicans have attempted to offer ideas to reduce spending and the national debt, or at least to slow down the growth in both. Had Democrats decided to actually produce a budget, they would have had to consider the following:

Cancel Unused TARP Funds. Prohibit the Treasury Secretary from entering into new commitments under the Troubled Asset Relief Program [TARP]. Ending TARP would prevent up to $396 billion in additional disbursements; CBO estimates savings of $16 billion. H.R. 3140 introduced by Rep. Tom Price of Georgia.

Reduce Government Employment. Hire one person for every two who leaves civilian government service until the workforce is reduced to pre-Obama levels (exempting the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs). Saves an estimated $35 billion. H.R. 5348 introduced by Rep. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming.

Adopt the Legislative Line-Item Veto. Enact a constitutional line-item veto law. The President’s FY 2011 budget included terminations, reductions, and savings that would achieve $23 billion in one year. While Congress may not accept all these savings, the Line Item Veto can help reduce spending. H.R. 1294 introduced by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.

Reform and Bring Transparency to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Reform these companies by ending conservatorship, shrinking their portfolios, establishing minimum capital standards, reducing conforming loan limits, and bringing transparency to taxpayer exposure. According to CBO, the cost to taxpayers of putting government in control of Fannie and Freddie is $373 billion through 2020. Saves an estimated $30 billion. H.R. 4889 introduced by Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas. H.R. 4653 introduced by Rep. Scott Garrett of New Jersey.

Create a Sunset Commission. Establish a commission to conduct systematic reviews of Federal programs and agencies, and make recommendations for those that should be terminated; and provide for automatic sunset of programs unless expressly reauthorized by the Congress. H.R. 393 introduced by Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas.

The biggest gain would come from rolling back non-defense discretionary spending to FY2008 levels, which would save $925 billion over ten years. That, by the way, was the first of the Democratic Party budgets produced by Nancy Pelosi after taking the gavel in January 2007. It might be better to go back to FY2000 or FY2001, before Republicans and Democrats combined to add hefty increases in nondefense discretionary spending, but FY2008 is at least an improvement — and a good start.
Fannie and Freddie reform might be the most stabilizing of the proposals. Except for the unfunded mandates of Social Security and Medicare, Fannie/Freddie represent the greatest threat of potential future liabilities for the American taxpayer. Instead of containing that damage, Congress allowed the Obama administration to uncap the Fannie/Freddie line of credit, making their bailouts bottomless. Until we rid ourselves of that liability and force Fannie, Freddie, and the FHA to return to proper lending standards, we risk further collapses.
The Republicans have published their ideas on how to return to fiscal responsibility and accountability. It may not be complete, but it’s better than anything seen from the Democrats, who seem intent on proving that they can’t even budget, let alone govern.
Republicans are also launching their America Speaking Out project, which will allow Americans to give feedback to their elected representatives about cutting spending and restoring fiscal responsibility. I’ll talk with Rep. Michele Bachmann about that today on The Ed Morrissey Show, which starts at 3 pm ET!

Every so often, the president takes his revenge, as Obama did on Friday, mocking skeptical reporters who have been questioning the positive impact of health-care reform. "Can you imagine if some of these reporters were working on a farm and you planted some seeds and they came out next day and they looked—Nothing’s happened! There’s no crop! We’re gonna starve! Oh, no! It’s a disaster!" Obama told a town meeting in Maine. “It’s been a week, folks. So before we find out if people like health-care reform, we should wait to see what happens when we actually put it into place. Just a thought.”

What monumental irrelevant obfuscation! How about this, Mr. Obama...

You planted some rocks in the ground that caused you to sell all you and your family own just to buy the rocks. But you were assured they would grow into a bountiful harvest of grain, not even requiring water or fertilizer.

Thursday, January 28, 2010

AP’s ten whoppers from the SOTU speech

Only ten? Maybe the Associated Press got as tired as everyone else listening to Barack Obama’s lengthy State of the Union speech last night and stopped paying attention after an hour. AP’s headline focuses on the “toothless commission” that Obama demanded, but the other nine fails on their fact-check test are just as interesting and revealing (via Geoff A):

President Barack Obama told Americans the bipartisan deficit commission he will appoint won’t just be “one of those Washington gimmicks.” Left unspoken in that assurance was the fact that the commission won’t have any teeth. …

OBAMA: “I’ve called for a bipartisan fiscal commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. This can’t be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline. Yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans.”

THE FACTS: Any commission that Obama creates would be a weak substitute for what he really wanted — a commission created by Congress that could force lawmakers to consider unpopular remedies to reduce the debt, including curbing politically sensitive entitlements like Social Security and Medicare. That idea crashed in the Senate this week, defeated by equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans. Any commission set up by Obama alone would lack authority to force its recommendations before Congress, and would stand almost no chance of success.

Of course, even his first proposal was a rather dishonest dodge of accountability, especially for Democrats. A bipartisan commission that recommended tax hikes as a means of raising revenue would allow Democrats to shove part of the blame for raising taxes in a recession on Republicans. It would allow more of them to tell voters, “Well, we committed to doing what the commission demanded,” or “We had to accept the commission’s findings in toto based on the rules established for it,” or other such nonsense. We already have a bipartisan commission with 535 members to handle budgetary decisions — it’s called Congress.

The other whoppers:

Spending freeze – The AP points out that it will save less than 1% of predicted deficits over the next ten years — and that Obama scoffed at such a plan when John McCain proposed it in 2008.

Health care – Obama said the Democratic plan would allow people to keep their insurance and their doctors, but the bill doesn’t guarantee either. Their plan has massive cuts to Medicare Advantage, which would definitely affect coverage of a large portion of America’s seniors and disabled.

Lobbyists – Obama has not “excluded” lobbyists from his administration; he’s hired over a dozen for key posts, and the AP notes seven of those waivers were for White House posts. Obama called for restrictions on lobbyist contributions, but those already exist.

Two million jobs saved through Porkulus – The CBO puts the theoretical range between 600K and 1.6 million, but also cautions that the methodology of estimating jobs “saved or created” is “uncertain.” The last detailed numbers the White House produced totaled 650,000 — and were found to be highly inaccurate.

Openness: “Obama skipped past a broken promise from his campaign — to have the negotiations for health care legislation broadcast on C-SPAN “so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies.” Instead, Democrats in the White House and Congress have conducted the usual private negotiations, making multibillion-dollar deals with hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and other stakeholders behind closed doors. Nor has Obama lived up consistently to his pledge to ensure that legislation is posted online for five days before it’s acted upon.”

The last two are on the rate of killing al-Qaeda leadership and the status on START talks with Russia. In both cases, the AP suspects that Obama overstates his case, but also reports that it’s difficult to measure either. The US has never given body counts on fighting AQ in the Af-Pak theater, mainly because many of the operations are covert, and because enemy body counts fell out of favor with the Vietnam War and have been only reluctantly shared in other conflicts.

Let me add at least one other whopper that the AP doesn’t mention. Obama repeatedly insisted that he inherited massive budgetary problems from George Bush, but the Con Law professor may want to retake his high-school civics class. Congress passes budgets, not the President, and the last three budgets came from Democrats. In three years, they increased annual federal spending by $900 billion, while the admittedly profligate and irresponsible Republican Congresses under George Bush increased annual federal spending by $800 billion — in six years. And during the last three years before taking office as President, Obama served in the Senate that passed those bills, and he voted for every Democratic budget put in front of him.

Thursday, July 9, 2009

CO2 has no impact on the earth’s temperature, that is just the biglie that has been pushed for so long that unfortunately lots ofpeople have come to believe it.

Firstly CO2 is the RESULT of higher temperatures not the cause. TheSunspot Cycle drives variation in climate, see this chart from NASAand see that its about a ten to twelve year cycle. When the earth iswarmer more CO2 is released from the oceans. But CO2 does not drivethe temperature change, the sun does that. CO2 is a minority gas inthe atmosphere that only makes up far less than one percent (.038%to be exact). CO2 is an essential gas which plant life requires inorder to grow.

Here is what scientists without economic interest in the globalwarming fraud have to say about CO2

If you take CO2 as a percentage of all the gases in the atmosphere,the oxygen, the nitrogen and argon and so on its .054% [.00054], itsan incredibly small portion and then of course you’ve got to takethat portion which supposedly humans are adding which is the focusof all the concern and it gets even smaller.

The atmosphere is made up of a multitude of gases, a small percentage of them we call greenhouse gases, and of that very smallpercentage of greenhouse gases, 95% of it is water vapor, its themost important greenhouse gas.

The ice core record goes to the very heart of the problem we havehere, they said, if the CO2 increases in the atmosphere as agreenhouse gas then the temperature will go up, but the ice corerecords shows exactly the opposite. So the fundamental assumption,the most fundamental assumption of the whole theory of climate change due to humans is shown to be wrong.

Professor Tim Ball, Dept. of Climatology University of Winnipeg[There have been periods] in earth’s history when we had three timesas much CO2 as we do today, times when we had ten times as much CO2 as we have today, if CO2 has a large effect in climate then weshould see it in the temperature reconstruction.

Professor Nir Shawiv, Institute of Physics, University of JerusalemWe can’t say that CO2 will drive climate, it certainty never did inthe past.

CO2 clearly cannot be causing temperature changes, its a product oftemperature, its following temperature changes.

Professor Ian Clark, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of OttawaNone of the major climate changes in the last thousand years can beexplained by CO2.

Humans produce a small fraction in the single digits, percentagewise of the CO2 that is produced in the atmosphere.

Professor John Christy, Lead Author, IPCC, Department of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville"Anyone that goes around and says that carbon dioxide is responsiblefor most of the warming of the 20th century hasn’t looked at thebasic numbers."

Professor Patrick Michaels, Dept of Environmental Sciences,University of Virginia, "CO2 began to increase exponentially in about 1940, but the temperature actually began to decrease 1940, continued until about 1975."

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

From my perspective, it seems that all of you have gone insane. I also know that I am far from alone in these feelings. Do you honestly feel that your current pursuits have merit to patriotic Americans? We want it to stop. We want to put the brakes on everything that is being rushed by us and forced upon us. We want our voice back.

You have forced us to put our lives on hold to straighten out the mess that you are making. We will have to give up our vacations, our time spent with our children, any relaxation time we may have had and money we cannot afford to spend on you to bring our concerns to Washington.

Our president often knows all the right buzzword is unsustainable. Well, no kidding. How many tens of thousands of dollars did the focus group cost to come up with that word? We don't want your overpriced words. Stop treating us like we're morons.

We want all of you to stop focusing on your reelection and do the job we want done, not the job you want done or the job your party wants done. You work for us and at this rate I guarantee you not for long because we are coming. We will be heard and we will be represented.

You think we're so busy with our lives that we will never come for you? We are the formerly silent majority, all of us who quietly work , pay taxes, obey the law, vote, save money, keep our noses to the grindstone and we are now looking up at you. You have awakened us, the patriotic spirit so strong and so powerful that it had been sleeping too long. You have pushed us too far. Our numbers are great. They may surprise you. For every one of us who will be there, there will be hundreds more that could not come. Unlike you, we have their trust. We will represent them honestly, rest assured. They will be at the polls on voting day to usher you out of office. We have cancelled vacations. We will use our last few dollars saved. We will find the representation among us and a grassroots campaign will flourish. We didn't ask for this fight. But the gloves are coming off.We do not come in violence, but we are angry. You will represent us or you will be replaced with someone who will...."

Sunday, April 26, 2009

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

from Cameron Barrows, who organized the TaxDay Tea Party in Anchorage:

"We are having another event April 28th at the Loussac library at 4:30 PM. The assembly is voting to raise property taxes and we need to show that we do not want higher taxes in Anchorage!! We are only asking people to show up with signs and, if you can be creative, a fake pitch fork! Hope to see you there!!"

Saturday, April 18, 2009

Chances are...if you have a brain and a pair of eye-balls. Here is the definition taken from the recent DHS unclassified report:quote from page 2.

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

I guess the founding fathers would be in big trouble for their inclusion of states rights in the constitution. And lookout for those wacky volunteers at Crisis Pregnancy Centers.. shudder.

APPOINTMENT OF GEITHNER AS PRESIDENT OF FEDERAL RESERVE OF NEW YORK - A MAN WHO COULD NOT COMPLETE HIS FEDERAL TAXES CORRECTLY EVEN USING TURBOTAX.

OBAMA PRE-APPOINTMENT OF RICHARDSON AS COMMERCE SECRETARYOn December 3, 2008, then-President-elect Barack Obama designated Richardson for appointment to the cabinet-level position of Commerce Secretary.[1] On January 4, 2009, Richardson announced his decision to withdraw his nomination as a result of an investigation into improper business dealings in New Mexico.

THERE IS NO PORK IN MY STIMULUS BILL.AT LAST COUNT THERE WERE 9,000 ITEMS OF PORK IN IT.

OBAMA'S STIMULUS BILL GIVES $165 MILLION IN TAXPAYER MONEY IN BONUSES TO AIG PEOPLE WHO WERE IN CHARGE DURING AIG FAILURE.

OBAMA PROMISED FIVE DAYS OF REVIEW OF HIS PROPOSED STIMULUS LEGISLATION.STIMULUS BILL WAS PRESENTED ON A FRIDAY AND SIGNED THAT MONDAY.

OBAMA GIVING A 25 DVD GIFTSET TO THE PRIME MINISTER OF BRITAIN THAT WON'T EVEN PLAY ON BRITISH DVD PLAYERS

After Brown presented Obama with a pen holder crafted from the timbers of the 19th century British warship HMS President (whose sister ship, HMS Resolute, provided the wood for the Oval Office's desk), Obama offered up ... 25 DVDs of American movie classics...Never mind that Brown is blind in one eye and may have a hard time seeing the stars in "2001: A Space Odyssey," or that American DVDs are usually incompatible with British players.

Obama signing a bill funding abortions overseas.

Obama signing the LIly Ledbetter bill so that more people will be able to sue for pay discrimination after a longer period of time. We don't need your help Obama.. this will just cause more issues.

Obama saying that no lobbyists will be in his administration - yet waivers of course for those who are.

Obama breaking his campaign promise of no earmarks - see the non-stimulus pork package bill.

Obama saying there will be transparency and bi-partisanship in his administration - yes meetings behind closed doors to get RINOS to cave on the pork package is transparency? NOT working with ALL of Congress is bi-partisanship?

Obama picking high level cabinet members who apparently don't believe THEY have to pay taxes.

Barney Frank calling for Congress to regulate ALL CEO salaries for ALL American companies and the tax cheat Giethner agreeing.

Nationalized healthcare for kids - with loopholes so that parents can dump their kids off of their insurance and put them on the 'dole' insurance. (happened in Hawaii.. happens here...no one can sustain it or afford it).

Rep. Rush from Chicago introducing The Blair Holt gun bill in the House right now calling for the FEDERAL gov't to control gun licensing/commerce etc. AGAINST our 2nd Amendment

The Fairness Doctrine that will most likely find it's way into a bill. AGAINST our 1st Amendment. And Obama continually trying to insinuate that people shouldn't watch cable news. Why Obama? Because those are the only news stations that actually tell US the truth?

Nationalizing banks by bailing them out.

Nationalizing automotive companies by bailing them out.

Nationalizing financial services industries by bailing them out.

Obama wanting to have Emanuel supervise the INDEPENDENT Census Bureau.

Obama Closing Gitmo without any plan as to where to put terrorists.

Obama dismissing the case against the terrorist who masterminded the bombing of the USS Cole that killed 17 of our navy.

Obama pushing the non-stimulus package like a drug dealer pushing deadly heroin. Using scare tactics to make citizens believe we have to act now or the sky will fall.

Obama now in bed with the CEO of GE - yes the CEO who continued to do business with Iran.. who owns NBC.. who's subsidiary GE Capital received bailout money.. yes this man will really give some good advice.

Obama refusing to acknowledge there is a 'war on terror' by not referring to it as such. A stupid pharase anyway but at least it acknowledged the activity. Sorry.. YOU may think there is no war with Islamists, but they will ALWAYS wage a war on the United States.

Obama is completely INCAPABLE of speaking without a teleprompter.

$900 million to rebuild Gaza - completely insane.

The biggest budget proposal in the HISTORY of our COUNTRY!!!!!! The CBO states that this will cause our deficit to grow to $9.3 TRILLION by 2019.

No longer calling terrorists terrorists or enemy combatants – they are ‘people who create man-made disasters’.

Billions set aside for Universal Healthcare which includes ALL of our private healthcare records to be available to the federal gov’t. His plan also calls for the FEDERAL GOV’T to tell OUR doctors what the most effective treatment would be for US.

Created the new Urban Policy Center.

How many Czars are there now??? WTF do we have Czars in the UNITED STATES???

A bill in the House that gives the equivalent of 1% of our GDP in FOREIGN AID.

Allowing ACORN to aid in the 2010 Census!!!!!!!!!

HR 1388 passed the House – mandating civilian service – against the 1st Amendment because they are not allowed to protest etc… and against the 13th Amendment for involuntary servitude. If you don’t do it you get taxed at a 5% higher rate.

Nominating Eric Holder as the Attorney General who calls us a ‘Nation of Cowards’ when referring to racism.

Nominating a terrorist defender as Holder’s 2nd in line.

HR 1586 – aka Bonus Tax Bill that the House passed and Obama will sign if it passes the Senate. A direct VIOLATION of the Constitution.

Obama is going to talk about controlling CEO and Executive pay for Banks, Wall Street and ‘other companies’ on Monday.

A fru-fru message to Iran extending an ‘olive branch’. Their response was ‘go F yourself’.

Appearing on Jay Leno.

Appearing on Jay Leno and making a comment about the ‘Special Olympics’ and his bad bowling.

Suggesting that VETERANS pay for combat injuries with THEIR OWN PRIVATE INSURANCE.

Treats the PM of England as if his country and he himself are not important. WH aid quoted as saying England is no different than the other 190 countries in the world.

Ending the Bush tax cuts after 2010 for those making over $250,000 (supposedly).

Raising the number of people in the country who do NOT pay federal taxes from 38% to 50%.

NOT giving 95% of Americans tax cuts. And the one he gave – COMPLETE joke!!!!!!!!!

CAP & TRADE – which is going to screw ALL of us, including his most favored poor people!!!!!!

OBAMA BREAKS LAW ON TARP OVERSIGHTThe TARP bill required an oversight committee to meet at least once a month. The last recorded meeting of the committee took place on January 15. Obama has yet to hold an oversight committee meeting. The meeting minutes are posted on the treasury website. When you search for the meeting minutes the last meeting recorded was January 15:

Bowing to Saudi king as a common supplicant.

Smiling and shaking hands with narco-terrorist supporter and thug, Hugo Chavez. Only a couple of months ago he elicited different comments from the Thug-In-Chief:

In an interview airing on Venezuelan television and reported by The Washington Post Monday, Chavez said Obama has "the same stench" as Bush. The comment harkens back to September 2006, when Chavez addressed the United Nations General Assembly after Bush and said he could still smell the "sulfur" the U.S. president left behind at the podium. -- Foxnews

Now they're best buddies? Somebody is a dupe. I wonder who?

In April, he did another 180..the monstrous idea that previous administration officials should be held liable for "immoral" acts of interrogation...like water-boarding. But he won't declassify the memos that showed the interrogation techniques saved perhaps thousands, particularly in thwarting an attack in Los Angeles.

Few presidential candidates have made more specific promises to American voters than Barack Obama. They came so fast and furious in the latter part of the campaign, you'd be excused for not keeping up. So as a public service, we've put together a handy checklist of some of the biggest Obama promises — culled from his "Blueprint for Change," his campaign speeches and advertisements. Clip it. Save it. And see how he did in four years.

Taxes

• Give a tax break to 95% of Americans.

• Restore Clinton-era tax rates on top income earners.

• "If you make under $250,000, you will not see your taxes increase by a single dime. Not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes. Nothing."

• Dramatically simplify tax filings so that millions of Americans will be able to do their taxes in less than five minutes.

• Give American businesses a $3,000 tax credit for every job they create in the U.S.

• Eliminate capital gains taxes for small business and startup companies.

• Eliminate income taxes for seniors making under $50,000.

• Expand the child and dependent care tax credit.

• Expand the earned income tax credit.

• Create a universal mortgage credit.

• Create a small business health tax credit.

• Provide a $500 "make work pay" tax credit to small businesses.

• Provide a $1,000 emergency energy rebate to families.

Energy

• Spend $15 billion a year on renewable sources of energy.

• Eliminate oil imports from the Middle East in 10 years.

• Increase fuel economy standards by 4% a year.

• Weatherize 1 million homes annually.

• Ensure that 10% of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012.

Environment

• Create 5 million green jobs.

• Implement a cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Wow! What a great day. When I heard about the Tea Party, I scheduled 4 hrs time off just so I would be sure to be there on a workday.

I arrived at the Federal Bldg about 10:20 to see about eight folks including Cameron Barrows and immediately thought it might be a disappointing turnout. I began to wonder if I was one of only a handful who are fed up with the profligate spending, the insults to conservative Americans and the wholesale lurching toward socialism.

More folks began to trickle in and by 11:30 there were a couple hundred. Still, not quite a crowd. But then more and more and more...we filled up all four corners of the intersection, singing and chanting. Lots of good humor and no nastiness. Eventually we had about 1200 demonstrators when I left at 1:30 to get back to work. Like Randy Neuman's song says "I hope this feelin lasts..."

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Walter Williams has a link to an incredible article describing the Great Depression's causes and parallels to today's fiscal insanity. This is a long article, and well worth the time.

snippet from end of article:

...All this raises many issues economists have long debated:Who or what should determine a nation’s supply of money? Why do governments so regularlymismanage it? What is the connection between fiscal and monetary policy?

Suffice it to say here that governments inflate because their appetite for revenueexceeds their willingness to tax or their ability to borrow. British economist John Maynard Keynes was an influential charlatan in many ways, but he nailed it when he wrote, “By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.” ...

...Today’s slow-motion dollar depreciation, with consumer prices rising at persistent butmere single-digit rates, is just a limited version of the same process.

Government spends, runs deficits and pays some of its bills through the inflation tax.

How long it can go on is a matter of speculation, but trillions in national debt and politicians whomake misers of drunken sailors and get elected by promising even more are not factors thatshould encourage us. I nflation is very much with us but it must end someday. A currency’svalue is not bottomless. Its erosion must cease either because government stops its recklessprinting or prints until it wrecks the money.

But surely, which way it concludes will depend in large measure on whether its victimscome to understand what it is and where it comes from. Meanwhile,our economy looks like a roller coaster because Congresses, Presidents and the agenciesthey’ve empowered never cease their monetary mischief. ...

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Last week, the White House invited me to a signing ceremony overturning the Bush (43) executive order on stem cell research. I assume this was because I have long argued in these columns and during my five years on the President's Council on Bioethics that, contrary to the Bush policy, federal funding should be extended to research on embryonic stem cell lines derived from discarded embryos in fertility clinics.

I declined to attend. Once you show your face at these things you become a tacit endorser of whatever they spring. My caution was vindicated.

President Bush had restricted federal funding for embryonic stem cell research to cells derived from embryos that had already been destroyed (as of his speech of Aug. 9, 2001). While I favor moving that moral line to additionally permit the use of spare fertility clinic embryos, President Obama replaced it with no line at all. He pointedly left open the creation of cloned -- and noncloned sperm-and-egg-derived -- human embryos solely for the purpose of dismemberment and use for parts.

I am not religious. I do not believe that personhood is conferred upon conception. But I also do not believe that a human embryo is the moral equivalent of a hangnail and deserves no more respect than an appendix. Moreover, given the protean power of embryonic manipulation, the temptation it presents to science and the well-recorded human propensity for evil even in the pursuit of good, lines must be drawn. I suggested the bright line prohibiting the deliberate creation of human embryos solely for the instrumental purpose of research -- a clear violation of the categorical imperative not to make a human life (even if only a potential human life) a means rather than an end.

On this, Obama has nothing to say. He leaves it entirely to the scientists. This is more than moral abdication. It is acquiescence to the mystique of "science" and its inherent moral benevolence. How anyone as sophisticated as Obama can believe this within living memory of Mengele and Tuskegee and the fake (and coercive) South Korean stem cell research is hard to fathom.

That part of the ceremony, watched from the safe distance of my office, made me uneasy. The other part -- the ostentatious issuance of a memorandum on "restoring scientific integrity to government decision-making" -- would have made me walk out.

Restoring? The implication, of course, is that while Obama is guided solely by science, Bush was driven by dogma, ideology and politics.

What an outrage. Bush's nationally televised stem cell speech was the most morally serious address on medical ethics ever given by an American president. It was so scrupulous in presenting the best case for both his view and the contrary view that until the last few minutes, the listener had no idea where Bush would come out.

Obama's address was morally unserious in the extreme. It was populated, as his didactic discourses always are, with a forest of straw men. Such as his admonition that we must resist the "false choice between sound science and moral values." Yet, exactly 2 minutes and 12 seconds later he went on to declare that he would never open the door to the "use of cloning for human reproduction."

Does he not think that a cloned human would be of extraordinary scientific interest? And yet he banned it.

Is he so obtuse as not to see that he had just made a choice of ethics over science? Yet, unlike Bush, who painstakingly explained the balance of ethical and scientific goods he was trying to achieve, Obama did not even pretend to make the case why some practices are morally permissible and others not.

This is not just intellectual laziness. It is the moral arrogance of a man who continuously dismisses his critics as ideological while he is guided exclusively by pragmatism (in economics, social policy, foreign policy) and science in medical ethics.

Science has everything to say about what is possible. Science has nothing to say about what is permissible. Obama's pretense that he will "restore science to its rightful place" and make science, not ideology, dispositive in moral debates is yet more rhetorical sleight of hand -- this time to abdicate decision-making and color his own ideological preferences as authentically "scientific."

Dr. James Thomson, the pioneer of embryonic stem cells, said "if human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough." Obama clearly has not.

Thursday, July 3, 2008

I have always been amazed at the disproportionate contributions to society by my Jewish brothers. I personally believe this is evidence that they continue to be a blessing to this earthly existence by the great I AM. He chose this people to be special messengers...He has chided them, nurtured them, punished them, loved them and I believe will protect them in spite of overwhelming odds.

But just look at this list and tell me there isn't something special here.

Copied from skepticforum.com:

Muslim vs. Jewish Contributions to the World

Muslim

The Global Islamic population is approximately 1,200,000,000, or 20% of the world population.

The Jews are not promoting brain washing the children in military training camps, teaching them how to blow themselves up and cause maximum deaths of Jews and other non Muslims.

The Jews don’t hijack planes, nor kill athletes at the Olympics.

The Jews don’t traffic in slaves, nor have leaders calling for Jihad and death to all the Infidels.

Perhaps the world’s Muslims should consider investing more in standard education and less in blaming the Jews for all their problems.

Regardless of your feelings about the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians and Arab neighbors, even if you believe there is more culpability on Israel’s part, the following two sentences really say it all:If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence.

If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel.

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

This comedian has a brilliantly eloquent decription of the genesis of distrous and immoral choices by modern liberals. I have spent considerable time trying to make sense of why seemingly normal, intelligent people can buy in to such obviously wrong-headed or just plain evil ideas in the name of being "progressive" or "open-minded."

Mr. Sayet provides that explaination. The occasion is his address to the Heritage Foundation. It's not short - but worth it.

Saturday, March 29, 2008

When Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone:United States -- Muslim 1.0%Australia -- Muslim 1.5%Canada -- Muslim 1.9%China -- Muslim 1%-2%Italy -- Muslim 1.5%Norway -- Muslim 1.8%

At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:Denmark -- Muslim 2%Germany -- Muslim 3.7%United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%Spain -- Muslim 4%Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law.France -- Muslim 8%Philippines -- Muslim 5%Sweden -- Muslim 5%Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%

From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:Albania -- Muslim 70%Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%Sudan -- Muslim 70%

Saturday, March 8, 2008

Copied from SonsOfApesAndPigs .. Sounds like somebody in Holland has a backbone! Wouldn't it be nice if we had some polititians in US like that? And while you're at it, stop using the feckless, moronic term "war on terror." This is a war with Islamists.

Geert Wilders: 1400 years ago war was declared on us by a barbarian who called himself the Prophet

Can anyone deny these facts from the Koran. What Geert Wilders is saying for Holland, Is also true for every single western country. If western populations won't wake up and act to outlaw the Koran, only God knows the turmoil and chaos you'll bring on yourselves and your children. This is not being over reacting, exageration, sounding alarmist, or crying wolf. In case that's what you would say, then it's you that is not reading, not the writing on the wall, but the writing in the Koran. And it's not me threatening you with turmoil, death and destruction. It's the Koran, every Muslim believing in its commandments, Islam's history of terror, mosque's preachers, Muslim activists, the unending demands and threats of Muslims in every western country, the intelligence agencies of the western world, turmoil and chaos in the Islamic world, and the daily news.

Mr Wilders contribution to the parliamentary debate on Islamic activism (thanks to Louis)Madam Speaker, allow me, first, to express my sincere thanks to you personally for having planned a debate on Islam on the very day of my birthday. I could not have wished for a nicer present! Madam Speaker, approximately 1400 years ago war was declared on us by an ideology of hate and violence which arose at the time and was proclaimed by a barbarian who called himself the Prophet Mohammed. I am referring to Islam.

Madam Speaker, let me start with the foundation of the Islamic faith, the Koran. The Koran’s core theme is about the duty of all Muslims to fight non-Muslims; an Islamic Mein Kampf, in which fight means war, jihad. The Koran is above all a book of war – a call to butcher non-Muslims (2:191, 3:141, 4:91, 5:3), to roast them (4:56, 69:30-69:32), and to cause bloodbaths amongst them (47:4). Jews are compared to monkeys and pigs (2:65, 5:60, 7:166), while people who believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God must according to the Koran be fought (9:30).

Madam Speaker, the West has no problems with Jews or Christians, but it does have problems with Islam. It is still possible, even today, for Muslims to view the Koran, which they regard as valid for all time, as a licence to kill. And that is exactly what happens. The Koran is worded in such a way that its instructions are addressed to Muslims for eternity, which includes today’s Muslims. This in contrast to texts in the Bible, which is formulated as a number of historical narratives, placing events in a distant past. Let us remind ourselves that it was Muslims, not Jews or Christians, who committed the catastrophic terrorist attacks in New York, Madrid and London; and that it was no coincidence that Theo van Gogh was brutally murdered by a Muslim, Mohammed Bouyeri.

Madam Speaker, I acknowledge that there are people who call themselves Muslims and who respect our laws. My party, the Freedom Party, has nothing against such people, of course. However, the Koran does have something against them. For it is stated in the Koran in Sura 2, verse 85, that those believers who do not believe in everything the Koran states will be humiliated and receive the severest punishment; which means that they will roast in Hell. In other words, people who call themselves Muslims but who do not believe, for example, in Sura 9, verse 30, which states that Jews and Christians must be fought, or, for example, in Sura 5, verse 38, which states that the hand of a thief must be cut off, such people will be humiliated and roast in Hell. Note that it is not me who is making this up. All this can be found in the Koran. The Koran also states that Muslims who believe in only part of the Koran are in fact apostates, and we know what has to happen to apostates. They have to be killed.

Madam Speaker, the Koran is a book that incites to violence. I remind the House that the distribution of such texts is unlawful according to Article 132 of our Penal Code. In addition, the Koran incites to hatred and calls for murder and mayhem. The distribution of such texts is made punishable by Article 137(e). The Koran is therefore a highly dangerous book; a book which is completely against our legal order and our democratic institutions. In this light, it is an absolute necessity that the Koran be banned for the defence and reinforcement of our civilisation and our constitutional state. I shall propose a second-reading motion to that effect.

Madam Speaker, there is no such thing as “moderate Islam”. As Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan said the other day, and I quote, “There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it”. Islam is in pursuit of dominance. It wishes to exact its imperialist agenda by force on a worldwide scale (8:39). This is clear from European history. Fortunately, the first Islamic invasion of Europe was stopped at Poitiers in 732; the second in Vienna in 1683. Madam Speaker, let us ensure that the third Islamic invasion, which is currently in full spate, will be stopped too in spite of its insidious nature and notwithstanding the fact that, in contrast to the 8th and 17th centuries, it has no need for an Islamic army because the scared “dhimmis” in the West, also those in Dutch politics, have left their doors wide open to Islam and Muslims.Apart from conquest, Madam Speaker, Islam is also bent on installing a totally different form of law and order, namely Sharia law. This makes Islam, apart from a religion for hundreds of millions of Muslims also, and in particular, a political ideology (with political/constitutional/Islamic basic values, etc). Islam is an ideology without any respect for others; not for Christians, not for Jews, not for non‑believers and not for apostates. Islam aims to dominate, subject, kill and wage war.

Madam Speaker, the Islamic incursion must be stopped. Islam is the Trojan Horse in Europe. If we do not stop Islamification now, Eurabia and Netherabia will just be a matter of time. One century ago, there were approximately 50 Muslims in the Netherlands. Today, there are about 1 million Muslims in this country. Where will it end? We are heading for the end of European and Dutch civilisation as we know it. Where is our Prime Minister in all this? In reply to my questions in the House he said, without batting an eyelid, that there is no question of our country being Islamified. Now, this reply constituted a historical error as soon as it was uttered. Very many Dutch citizens, Madam Speaker, experience the presence of Islam around them. And I can report that they have had enough of burkas, headscarves, the ritual slaughter of animals, so‑called honour revenge, blaring minarets, female circumcision, hymen restoration operations, abuse of homosexuals, Turkish and Arabic on the buses and trains as well as on town hall leaflets, halal meat at grocery shops and department stores, Sharia exams, the Finance Minister’s Sharia mortgages, and the enormous overrepresentation of Muslims in the area of crime, including Moroccan street terrorists.In spite of all this, Madam Speaker, there is hope. Fortunately. The majority of Dutch citizens have become fully aware of the danger, and regard Islam as a threat to our culture. My party, the Freedom Party, takes those citizens seriously and comes to their defence.Many Dutch citizens are fed up to the back teeth and yearn for action. However, their representatives in The Hague are doing precisely nothing. They are held back by fear, political correctness or simply electoral motives. This is particularly clear in the case of PvdA, the Dutch Labour Party, which is afraid of losing Muslim voters. The Prime Minister said in Indonesia the other day that Islam does not pose any danger. Minister Donner believes that Sharia law should be capable of being introduced in the Netherlands if the majority want it. Minister Vogelaar babbles about the future Netherlands as a country with a Judeo‑Christian‑Islamic tradition, and that she aims to help Islam take root in Dutch society. In saying this, the Minister shows that she has obviously gone stark raving mad. She is betraying Dutch culture and insulting Dutch citizens. Madam Speaker, my party, the Freedom Party, demands that Minister Vogelaar retract her statement. If the Minister fails to do so, the Freedom Party parliamentary group will withdraw its support for her. No Islamic tradition must ever be established in the Netherlands: not now and also not in a few centuries’ time.Madam Speaker, let me briefly touch on the government’s response to the WRR [Netherlands Scientific Council for Government Policy] report. On page 12 of its response, the government states that Islam is not contrary to democracy or human rights. All I can say to that is that things can’t get much more idiotic than this.

Madam Speaker, it is a few minutes to twelve. If we go on like this, Islam will herald the end of our Western civilisation as well as Dutch culture.I would like to round off my first-reading contribution with a personal appeal to the Prime Minister on behalf of a great many Dutch citizens: stop the Islamification of the Netherlands!Mr Balkenende, a historic task rests on your shoulders. Be courageous. Do what many Dutch citizens are screaming out for. Do what the country needs. Stop all immigration from Muslim countries, ban all building of new mosques, close all Islamic schools, ban burkas and the Koran. Expel all criminal Muslims from the country, including those Moroccan street terrorists that drive people mad. Accept your responsibility! Stop Islamification!Enough is enough, Mr Balkenende. Enough is enough.

Friday, March 7, 2008

This is an excellent paper about the real history of the warfare in Middle East:...which is engulfing the world.

...

To better understand the hate fueling modern day Islamicism,2 one must first look back to its roots. From Ishmael, whose birthright was denied, to Esau and Jacob - rivaling twins, the seed of hate was sewn. What evolved thereafter was a bitter, jealousy that has been passed down to every Arab generation since. By the 7th century, this ancient hatred made its way into the heart and mind of a common-criminal named Mohammed - an Arab and descendant of Ishmael, who founded a religion and used it to justify his countless, criminal acts of rape and murder.

Both the western media and the Arab press routinely offer biased, politicized answers to what they believe drives this Islamic hatred for the west. From 'US support for Israel' to 'US secularism,' we've heard them all, and despite attempts to justify their inhumane acts, the truth is, Muslims have been committing terrorist acts for some 1,300 years - long before 'western culturalism' or 'US support for Israel' ever existed. And despite such history, we continue to ignorantly look elsewhere for the reasons.

From the early days of Islam to today's globally televised beheadings, Muslims are simply acting-out what Mohammed believed, and what the Qur'an teaches. And when Qur'anic Law was given the opportunity to govern, its violent, 7th century intolerance was seen through the eyes of Afghanistan's Taliban - a view of converting and uniting the Arab world under Islamic Law by sword first, and everyone else second.

What truly is at the heart of the Islamists hatred today is no different than that which fueled Mohammed's hatred as he wrote the Qur'an. It is the belief and goal of a one-world, global Islamic empire run by Qur'anic Law whereby everyone must, in the end, convert to their fundamentalist ideology or face beheading. The hatred that fuels this theocracy dates back to Ishmael and his son-in-law Esau, and from there, compounded to form the foundations of Islamicism which is the reason why most of the world conflicts today involve Muslims....

Friday, January 11, 2008

Why so many of our citizens who happen to have dark colored skin consider themselves Democrats is mind-boggeling. Democrats have been and continue to be overt racists! Check out this well spoken comment:

In terms of sheer historical hostility toward minorities, the Republican party fares a bit better than the competition. For example, it wasn’t the GOP that opposed the Emancipation Proclamation. Nor was it the GOP that opposed the Thirteenth Amendment prohibiting slavery, the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteeing equal protection, or the Fifteenth Amendment guaranteeing voting rights. (In fact, Republicans voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act in greater percentages than did Democrats.)

Moreover, it wasn’t the Republican party that opposed Teddy Roosevelt’s anti-lynching legislation or that filibustered or otherwise opposed more than a dozen other anti-lynching provisions during the 20th century.

It wasn’t a Republican who ordered the internment of Japanese-American citizens (or Italians or Germans) during World War II. Nor were Republicans behind the Chinese exclusion acts or licensing requirements that discriminated against non-white businesses and tradesmen.

Dean may honestly believe that his party is “more welcoming to different folks,” but tell that to Clarence Thomas, Miguel Estrada, or Janice Rogers Brown, each of whom was vilified in explicitly racial terms during their respective confirmation processes by members of Dean’s party.

Thursday, January 10, 2008

Here is a copy of a page from Alaska Pacific University...I can hardly believe the blindness these people stumble around in....worse yet they are teaching with this mindset. My editorial comments are in blue.

Engaging Muslims: Religion, Cultures, Politics

A Community Education ProjectSponsored by the Cardinal Newman Chair of Catholic Theology at Alaska Pacific University

Global issues mandate that Americans gain a better understanding of Islam. This is especially true as we face the upcoming national presidential election. Islam is now the second largest religious community in the United States. Anchorage is now home to over 2000 Muslims.

Yes, Americans should gain a better understanding of Islam. We should understand that Islam is violent, dominating and incompatible with our understanding of freedom. Second largest religious community in the US?? You must be smoking something funny. There are 2 million Muslims in America. Less than 1 percent of our population. Doesn't sound like a major movement.

Under the direction of the Cardinal Newman Chair, Alaska Pacific University is spearheading a project to foster a respectful understanding of Islam that recognizes the diversity in Islamic cultures as well as internal struggle within the contemporary Muslim world.

I have an idea. Let's spearhead a project to get adherents of Islam to respect our culture. I'm growing weary of Muslims whining about Islamophobia when Americans choose not to be intimidated.

While this engagement will not solve world problems, it is our hope that we will all grow beyond the distortions and phobia promoted in much of the public media and come to grow in friendship with our Muslim neighbors. We certainly can expect to ask better questions and to address these to candidates for public office.

Exactly what 'distortions and phobia' might be the point here. Might you be referring to the following: Islam calls for the death of apostates, the subjugation or death of non-Muslims, the killing of homosexuals, the amputation of hands and feet for thieves, the beating or stoning of adulterers. Oh golly, that isn't a distortion, that's fact,

So what better questions would you like to address candidates for office with?

What our politicians need to do is call a spade a spade. While many Muslims may be disengaged from their religious doctrine or just choose to ignore the unpleasant side of it, there are way too many who are happy with the fundamentalism of the Islamists. Islamo-fascism has declared war on civilization and we need to combat it. How are you going to do that Mr. President-elect?

Wednesday, January 9, 2008

I have been seeing trailers for the new flick, The Bucket List, with Morgan Freeman and Jack Nicholson. While the story might be kinda sappy (Rottentomatoes.com gives it a 46% approval rating) most folks would pay to see two venerable actors in such a flick.

What struck me though, it the underlying message. Two older men upon being diagnosed with fast moving cancer decide to go out and do all those things they failed to do as young men. Important things. Meaningful acts. Something that will make a difference for humanity.

Something like skydiving.

Is it just me? Or does this seem ridiculously shallow and sadly sophomoric?

Am I just taking up space on the planet to accumulate as much pleasure and excitement as I can before I kick the bucket? Is there no other reason to my life? That kind of existentialism is pretty bleak--you might as well just end it all right now.

Actually, I believe there is a very good reason I am here. The Creator of the universe has a plan for me...He wants me to graduate from the University of Earthly Life with several classes in compassion, love, sacrifice and humility. I hope to get at least a passing grade, but I'm pretty sure my time at "school" will be wasted if I concentrate on what a lot of vapid, narcissistic college students tend towards (I know, I was one of them).

What has this got to do with a dumb movie? Movies are made to make money. If you write a screenplay about a subject most people are going to agree with, chances are you will do pretty good. So, most often movies mirror society rather than guide it. The writers and producers must have thought Americans are shallow and childish -- maybe they're right.

The good news is that even with two great actors, the movie isn't much of a hit. It opened with gross receipts of only $161,000.

The big hit of the holiday was "National Treasure: Book of Secrets" grossing $65 million. A fun family movie with (shock) a patriotic theme.

Friday, December 21, 2007

Mike Huckabee has turned out to be a disappointment for me. First because his position on border security/immigration became more clearly understood as liberal. Next, the idiotic slap at Rush Limbaugh of all people! Sheesh, doesn't he know that he needs to BUILD a constituency, not alienate one?

I'm sad that someone so firmly on board with right-to-life is not going to be my candidate.

It seems to be the season for people to be offended. Offended by anything remotely suggestive of Christ or Christianity during the Christmas Season. Case in point the preposterous flap about Gov. Huckabee's supposed cross in the background of his video Christmas message. Even if it were intended--so what?

So to be right in step with my fellow Americans I will list things that offend me.

1. I am offended that cultists in America and around the world identify their deity with mine. If you want to make up a religion, don't smear the name of the real Creator with your false doctrines.

2. I am offended that "artists" are allowed to treat symbols of my faith with monstrous disrespect.

3. I am offended that Muslims consider my Jewish brothers and sisters as wretched non-humans deserving of death, and then my country's leaders say Islam is a "religion of peace."

4. I am offended that Islam subjugates women, forces them to genital mutilation, makes them wear a black tent with eye-slits and calls that respecting women.

5. I am offended that "our friends" the Saudis don't allow Churches, Bibles, or any free exercise of religion, but we allow their citizens to come over here study to be pilots and ram planes into buildings.

6. I am offended that my nation and religion are villified around the world when we contribute hugely more than any nation both in government and private donations to folks in need. Whether it is tsunami aid, medical help, education or just plain food and money--USA gives more that most countries produce.

Thanks to Christian church ministries, many of the suffering people in the world are given food, medication and hope. All funded privately. I don't see Muslim countries or even European countries making any impact in this regard.

Thursday, December 20, 2007

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.

Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust.” (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK)

This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new “consensus busters” report is poised to redefine the debate.

Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.

“Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,” Paldor wrote.

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

An excellent article by Bob Burney at TownHall makes a very clear point....Hey folks, believe whatever you want to, but don't try to pull the wool over anyone's eyes because you don't feel comfortable with the truth.

An interesting illustration of this has been playing itself out in current political news. In an interview with the New York Times Magazine, presidential candidate Mike Huckabee was questioned about his views of the Mormonism of fellow candidate Mitt Romney. Huckabee said he knew little about Mormonism and wondered out loud to the veteran religion reporter Zev Chafets: “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?” Well, that’s exactly what they believe! Several news outlets immediately accused Huckabee of attacking Romney’s religion. Blogs went berserk!

How did candidate Romney respond to someone revealing what his church actually believes? He said, “But I think attacking someone’s religion is really going too far. It’s just not the American way, and I think people will reject that,” Romney told NBC’s “Today” show.

How did the LDS Church respond? The Associated Press quoted an official spokeswoman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that Huckabee’s question is usually raised “by those who wish to smear the Mormon faith rather than clarify doctrine.” She went on to say, “We believe, as other Christians believe and Paul wrote, that God is the father of all … That means that all beings were created by God and are his spirit children. Christ, on the other hand, was the only begotten in the flesh and we worship him as the son of God and the savior of mankind. Satan is the exact opposite of who Christ is and what he stands for.”

She doesn’t deny anything Huckabee said, she is just very deft at using the language of and the association with mainstream Christianity to wrap their unorthodox doctrine in credibility.

Does this have anything to do with Mitt Romney and his qualifications to be president? Everyone will have to decide that in his or her own heart. I just wish the Mormons, including Mitt Romney, would simply be more candid and tell us the straight truth about their religion. Is that too much to ask?

Sunday, December 9, 2007

No, we're not talking about people who think it is God's will for them to strap on a chunk of C-4 and obliterate a busload of innocent travelers. We are talking about people striving to better the lives of fellow human beings. They were operating a Christian publishing house in Turkey when they were brutally executed by having their throats cut.

ANKARA, Turkey - Turkey has launched an investigation into alleged collusion between police officers and at least one of the suspects charged with killing three Christians earlier this year at a publishing house that produces Bibles, an official said Saturday.

Yes the Religion of Peace continues to demonstrate its loving nature. See the original story here

Thursday, December 6, 2007

Now, in the best of all worlds, I don't think religion should have a much to do, if anything, with whether a person is qualified to be POTUS. That said, my thought process and decision making path is going to include all attributes of a person. It is only logical to use any information we have to make a good decision.

Romney made the speach today to help voters feel more comfortable with his avowed religion.

My earlier post on this subject noted my discomfort with someone in such a powerful position who was either deceptive about or ignorant of the historically false, theologically unsound and profoundly anti Christian faith he espouses.

For example, from the speach we see this quote

"I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the savior of mankind," he said. While conceding Mormons have different beliefs about the earthly presence of Jesus Christ, "each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. ... Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree."

This is typical Mormon double-speak. The Jesus Christ they believe in is an exaulted man made so by his own effort. The same is true of his father, God...Mormons believe he is a man who achieved god-hood by good works.

"While conceding Mormons have different beliefs about the earthly presence of Jesus Christ.." Good grief! There certainly is a difference, like between a rock and a daisy!

"each religion has its own unique doctrines and history" . That's evidently supposed to make us feel OK, since we all believe in the same thing but just have some little niggly differences in doctrine.

Little differences like the pre-existent nature of God, the concept of the Trinity, the inerrancy of the Bible, salvation by faith not works, and other trivial matters.

So why can't we just be clear about this stuff? I don't care if you worship a watermelon, just don't pretend that because you call it Jesus, then you believe the same things I do. I also reserve the right to consider you a crackpot, but treat you fairly in non-theological areas.

Bottom line, if Mitt gets the GOP nomination he will get my vote....because he will be far better than ANY candidate the democrats have.